Saturday, January 04, 2014

That's AFP's video report and, to be clear, the man, Faraj Asim, holding the mortar round and pointing out this is a residential home? His brother's residential home. That mortar round came from Nouri's forces. Faraj Asim: There were no armed men inside. There was a family living here. Are this family the terrorists they're speaking about? Is this action the liberation from terrorism that they are speaking about?

Regardless of who 'controls' Falluja at this moment (or the next), one of the most popular clips on Arabic social media right now is video of an Iraqi military convoy near Ramadi being struck by rockets. Social media is also referring to fighters as "tribal rebels" and no one's linking 'al Qaeda' except for the day's big conspiracy fear/belief.

This one says over 500 fighters have entered via Syria in the last day and maintains that they made the crossing via Nouri who wants to use Anbar as an excuse to delay parliamentary elections.

As the assault on Anbar continues, Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports residents of Falluja are having to ration their food supplies to one meal a day because the assault has left those who have not fled their homes with very little food while the water and the electricity has been cut off. NINA notes that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi is calling for "the Iraqi Red Crescent Society to provide assistance and necessary vital needs" to Anbar residents.

The assault on Falluja bears all the hallmarks of the US military assault in Novemeber 2004.

Grace reports 3,000 residents have been displaced. Saleh al-Issawi, Vice Chair of Anbar Board, describes the conditions in other Anbar cities as "good" but only if compared to Falluja where a humanitarian crisis is taking place. There are also reports that Falluja General Hospital is low on medicine and medical supplies.

As Alsumaria reports, the Falluja residents are fleeing due to the bombings and the mortar attacks -- Nouir' military's bombing campaign and military's mortar attacks.

Ghassan al-Azzwi (Kitabat) notes Nouri's attack on the protesters at the start of the week and how Nouri's attack has outraged people. Hamid Shahab notes the indifference of the US to the crisis that has been ongoing and has now erupted with the assault on Anbar. NINA reports that Iraqiya head Ayad Allawi met with UK Ambassador Simon Collis today to discuss the crisis. NINA also notes:The Iraqi Front for National Dialogue, headed by Deputy Prime Minister,
Saleh al-Mutlaq, demanded finding an effective solution to the ongoing
events in Anbar province.The Iraqi Front for National Dialogue
media bureau quoted the Front’s member, Ashraf al-Dahan, saying that
deteriorating security and humanitarian situation in Anbar province is
badly in need for efforts to reach political solutions that would put
the province’s citizens at ease and there are serious efforts to fulfill
their legitimate demands.

I'll write about it tonight, I'll include it in at least one snapshot next week.

And I'm even putting it on the link list as it's own link. (We already have BRussells Tribunal on the link list itself.) (ADDED: It won't let me add it on it's own to the links. I'll see later if I can get into HTML and I'll add it that way. But I'm not sure on the new Blogger/Blogspot if you can go into programming on the template anymore.)

If you don't know BRussells Tribunal, you're missing out on a great deal.

Anbar Province is currently under assault by Nouri al-Maliki.

In a functioning world, the United Nations and others would have stepped in, arrested him and put him on trial long ago.

And yet the pathetic western press either ignores Hawija outright or minimizes it -- by saying 'over forty' or 'forty four' and never noting the 8 children killed.

BRussels Tribunal was the only English outlet in the world that published an account of what happened by an eye witness. In fact, the western press never bothered to speak to even one protester present.

Not one.

They never had a quote because they never gave a damn.

BRussells Tribunal carried the account of a man who was present, who was injured and who lost his son. Read Thamer Hussein Mousa's remarks below and grasp that no news outlet thought his story -- or the stories of others present -- qualified as "news" or even mattered:

I am Thamer Hussein Mousa from the village of Mansuriya in the district
of Hawija. I am disabled. My left arm was amputated from the shoulder
and my left leg amputated from the hip, my right leg is paralyzed due to
a sciatic nerve injury, and I have lost sight in my left eye.
I have five daughters and one son. My son’s name is Mohammed Thamer. I
am no different to any other Iraqi citizen. I love what is good for my
people and would like to see an end to the injustice in my country.
When we heard about the peaceful protests in Al-Hawija, taking place at
‘dignity and honor square’, I began attending with my son to reclaim
our usurped rights. We attended the protests every day, but last Friday
the area of protest was besieged before my son and I could leave; just
like all the other protestors there.
Food and drink were forbidden to be brought into the area….
On the day of the massacre (Tuesday 23 April 2013) we were caught by
surprise when Al-Maliki forces started to raid the area. They began by
spraying boiling water on the protestors, followed by heavy helicopter
shelling. My little son stood beside me. We were both injured due to the
shelling.
My son, who stood next to my wheelchair, refused to leave me alone. He
told me that he was afraid and that we needed to get out of the area. We
tried to leave. My son pushed my wheelchair and all around us, people
were falling to the ground.
Shortly after that, two men dressed in military uniforms approached us.
One of them spoke to us in Persian; therefore we didn’t understand what
he said. His partner then translated. It was nothing but insults and
curses. He then asked me “Handicapped, what do you want?” I did not
reply. Finally I said to him, “Kill me, but please spare my son”. My son
interrupted me and said, “No, kill me but spare my father”. Again I
told him “Please, spare my son. His mother is waiting for him and I am
just a tired, disabled man. Kill me, but please leave my son”. The man
replied “No, I will kill your son first and then you. This will serve
you as a lesson.” He then took my son and killed him right in front of
my eyes. He fired bullets into his chest and then fired more rounds. I
can’t recall anything after that. I lost consciousness and only woke up
in the hospital, where I underwent surgery as my intestines were hanging
out of my body as a result of the shot.
After all of what has happened to me and my little son – my only son,
the son who I was waiting for to grow up so he could help me – after all
that, I was surprised to hear Ali Ghaidan (Lieutenant General,
Commander of all Iraqi Army Ground Forces) saying on television, “We
killed terrorists” and displaying a list of names, among them my name:
Thamer Hussein Mousa.
I ask you by the name of God, I appeal to everyone who has a shred of
humanity. Is it reasonable to label me a terrorist while I am in this
situation, with this arm, and with this paralyzed leg and a blind eye?
I ask you by the name of God, is it reasonable to label me a terrorist?
I appeal to all civil society and human rights organizations, the
League of Arab States and the Conference of Islamic States to consider
my situation; all alone with my five baby daughters, with no one to
support us but God. I was waiting for my son to grow up and he was
killed in this horrifying way.

I hold Obama responsible for this act because he is the one who gave
them these weapons. The weapons and aircrafts they used and fired upon
us were American weapons. I also hold the United States of America
responsible for this criminal act, above all, Obama.

Those remarks remain heart breaking because of Hawija. As Nouri attacks Anbar and the western press ignores the people of Anbar, the remarks above serve to remind that western outlets are not reporting. Reporting requires addressing what's happening to the people, not merely repeating what the government forces (attacking the people!) say happened.

Friday, January 03, 2014

Friday, January 3, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, the people of Iraq continue to be terrorized by Nouri al-Maliki, Abu Rhisa is a mobster the US government got in bed with, US combat pay is cut in many places but not Iraq, Iraq becomes a major topic at today's State Dept press briefing, Human Rights Watch wants answers, and more.

For those to foolish to grasp that US forces remain in Iraq -- as trainers, the US Army Special-Ops sent back into Iraq in the fall of 2012 by US President Barack Obama, etc -- check out Australia ABC's report on the Defense Dept cuts on combat pay in many locations around the world and pay attention to this: "Military personnel will continue to receive imminent danger pay for
serving in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, where the US fought
wars over the past decade."

Now we're moving to a lengthy section of today's State Dept press briefing. After this morning's "Oh, look, it's al Qaeda! Oh, no, it's not! It's sometimes al Qaeda!," some may think spokesperson Marie Harf's saying what I want heard so we're including all of this! No. Although quickly, better eye glasses, Marie, they fit your face (her new eye glasses are better). We're noting this because of the December 27th snapshot where I asked, "So before the year ends is anyone going to call the press on their b.s.?" You can't say al Qaeda's increasing in Iraq and also applaud Barack's position. There's an inconsistency there. This was explored in the exchange that follows. Lucas Tomlinson is with Fox News, Matthew Lee is with the Associated Press and Said Arikat is with Al Quds.

Lucas Tomlinson: Do you have an update on the violence in Iraq?MS. HARF: Not an update from yesterday. I know we talked about this a little bit. Let me see what I have in here. Obviously, as I said yesterday, a number of our folks on the ground
and in Washington remain in touch with all of the different parties in
Iraq. I think I’d make the points I made yesterday that our overall
point is to encourage moderates on all sides and isolate extremists on
all sides, support the government in our fight against al-Qaida – a
fight, as you know, we share – and help them learn from the lessons that
we learned from fighting this. Obviously, we know the situation is very
serious. No update on that today, but it’s something we’re very
concerned about.Lucas Tomlinson: Yesterday, you indicated that Syria was to blame for the increase in violence.MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.Lucas Tomlinson: Do you stand by those comments?MS. HARF: Absolutely, yeah. I mean, largely to blame.
Obviously, there’s a lot of factors at play here. We know some of the
recent history in Iraq with some of the sectarian tensions. I’d note
that we are pleased that different political leaders have called for
calm and have taken steps to try to move away from this kind of
violence. But Syria obviously is an incredibly destabilizing force, not
just in Iraq but elsewhere.Lucas Tomlinson: Would you say al-Qaida is a part of this destabilizing force?MS. HARF: Well, again, I think it’s sort of what you asked
yesterday. There are different either affiliated groups with al-Qaida in
the region or groups that might take ideology from al-Qaida that aren’t
official affiliates. Certainly, we’re concerned about that. We have
been in Iraq for a long time, as you know, with the al-Qaida affiliate
there. But I’d say there are extremists on both sides here, and there
are moderates on both sides, and that’s why we’re encouraging the
moderates to step up increasingly and show these extremists that that’s
not the way forward for Iraq.Lucas Tomlinson: How would you define al-Qaida?MS. HARF: In general, or in Iraq?Lucas Tomlinson: Just in general.MS. HARF: Okay. Well, what we’ve talked a lot about, I think,
is – we talk a lot about al-Qaida core in here, right, and the success
we’ve had in Afghanistan and Pakistan against the al-Qaida core group,
which, quite frankly, is today a shadow of what it was, certainly on
9/11 but even after. At the same time, over the past few years, we’ve
made it clear that we’re increasingly concerned about either official
affiliates like AQAP or al-Shabaab, AQ in Somalia or elsewhere, but also
concerned with extremist groups who may claim ideology with al-Qaida
but aren’t official affiliates, and also concerned with sort of the lone
wolves that are out there that may go on the internet and see extremist
ideology and want to act on it. So that’s why I think you’ve heard the President speak about this
most recently at NDU, when he talked about the way forward and the
threat we face and how we’re going to fight it.Lucas Tomlinson: There was a UN report that was just released that said there were over 8,000 civilians killed in Iraq over the last year --MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.Lucas Tomlinson: -- the most deadly year in Iraq since 2008. And
critics of the Administration’s policies would say their policy in –
your policy in Iraq would say that we abandoned the country. Can you
respond to that?MS. HARF: Well, a few points. Obviously, we’ve condemned this
violence in the absolute strongest terms. But let’s be clear who’s
responsible for the violence. It’s the terrorists who were behind it.
That’s why we are partnering with the Iraqi Government very closely to
fight this shared threat, because at the end of the day we can certainly
help them fight it, but we also want to help them build their own
capability to do so themselves, because ultimately that’s the best way
forward for Iraq. So I don’t think we need to relitigate policy
decisions that were made however many months ago. But today, what we’re
focused on is the relationship, how we work together very closely on
this issue, and fighting this challenge, certainly, together.Lucas Tomlinson: Bottom line, would you say the threat of al-Qaida is increased in Iraq and Syria?MS. HARF: Well, I think I would say both in Syria and Iraq –
well, certainly – let’s start with Syria. I think the threat of
terrorism and extremism has increased as a direct result of the
atmosphere the Assad regime has created in Syria, the fact that they
have decided to engage in violence against their own people and really
create a security vacuum has led to a very serious situation where
terrorists like al-Qaida affiliated or people that claim ideology with
al-Qaida can flourish. Obviously, that’s why we’ve said that we need to
move quickly to end the civil war there even though it’s very, very
complicated and hard to do.Lucas Tomlinson: Doesn’t the al-Qaida threat in Syria, the al-Qaida presence, come from Anbar province in Iraq?MS. HARF: Well, I think that’s an oversimplification of sort
of the al-Qaida picture in the region. I think that there are extremists
and terrorists operating in both. I don’t know what the flowchart looks
like necessarily or where all the fighters are coming from when we look
at Syria. I’m happy to check with our experts and see, certainly, where
they come from and how they get to Syria. But we’re concerned about it
in both places, quite frankly, and that’s we are encouraging moderates
within Iraq – in the government, in Anbar, and elsewhere – to step up
and say this is not what we want for our country, to learn some of the
lessons we learned, and to move forward, hopefully, with a less violent
future.Lucas Tomlinson: Can we agree that the threat of al-Qaida has increased in the Middle East?MS. HARF: Well, I don’t – when you say “the threat from
al-Qaida,” that’s sort of an overly vague and broad and almost
without-meaning term.Lucas Tomlinson: Well, the source of these attacks --MS. HARF: Well --Lucas Tomlinson: -- in Iraq came from al-Qaida.MS. HARF: I think in some places, the terrorist threat has
gotten worse. Like I said, in Syria, certainly as a direct result of
what the Assad regime has done, the security situation, certainly the
threat of either al-Qaida affiliated or ideologically affiliated groups
has gotten worse. But when we take about, quote, “al-Qaida,” I’m not
sure if you’re referring to al-Qaida core, which actually we don’t think
has the reach into these places that it did in the past or that some
people might think. It doesn’t mean they’re less dangerous, but when
you’re talking about how to confront these groups, it matters where they
take their direction from, quite frankly. And when you use the term
al-Qaida, it matters what that means.Lucas Tomlinson: Well, from the podium you’ve mentioned foreign fighters --MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.Lucas Tomlinson: -- and having – going towards Syria responsible for
attacks against the Assad regime. Part of these flood of foreign
fighters do come from Iraq --MS. HARF: Absolutely.Lucas Tomlinson: -- and from Anbar province.MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.Lucas Tomlinson: And over the last year in Iraq, we’ve seen 8,000
civilians killed. I think it’s fairly self-evident that violence has
increased and the cause of that increase in violence is the al-Qaida
franchise.MS. HARF: Well, I think the use of “franchise” is a helpful
caveat. But again, who’s giving direction, operational direction,
operational planning to the folks that are perpetrating this violence in
Iraq? I’m happy to check in with our folks and see specifically what
part of the terrorist org chart that is. Because again, it matters not
just in the words you use but in how you fight it, something we’re
working with the Iraqi Government to do all the time, and the Lebanese
Government, as we talked a lot about, and others in the region as well.Lucas Tomlinson: So lastly, you will not say from that podium that the threat of – from al-Qaida is increasing in the Middle East?MS. HARF: Well, I would say the threat from al-Qaida core has
significantly decreased because of our efforts over the past several
years. The threat of – from al-Qaida affiliates in some places has
increased, certainly in Syria – we’ve talked about that. We’ve talked
about that in Yemen. Each country is different, each group is different,
and we will evaluate the threat each place differently. It’s just a
little more complicated than that.Matthew Lee: Without relitigating the decisions that were made in
the last term or over the past couple years, can you just address the
suggestion in one of the earlier questions that the United States
abandoned Iraq?MS. HARF: Well, I would fundamentally disagree with it. Just
because we don’t have troops on the ground doesn’t mean we don’t have a
continuing close partnership with the Iraqi Government. You see that all
the time from the assistance we give them. We talked a little bit about
it over the Christmas holiday, I think, some of the additional military
assistance we’ve given them. So we don’t define a relationship with a
country based on boots on the ground. In fact, it’s the opposite. We
very much have a close and continuing partnership and we’ll keep working
with them on this joint threat.Matthew Lee: Was it not the Administration’s preference to keep a number of troops on the ground in Iraq?MS. HARF: I’m really not going to relitigate the --Matthew Lee: I’m not asking you to relitigate it; I’m just --MS. HARF: Can I finish?Matthew Lee: Yes.MS. HARF: Thank you. I’m not going to go back into internal
deliberations about whether we were going to and wanted to put a new
SOFA in place, something that happened, what, two years ago now, two and
a half years ago now? I just don’t think that’s a beneficial discussion
to have from this podium. The President was very clear when he came
into office that our goal was to end the war in Iraq and bring our
troops home. I just don’t think it serves any purpose to re-litigate
those discussions from, what, 2011, in 2014.Matthew Lee: I’m not asking you to relitigate it. Was the Administration not interested in concluding a SOFA with the Iraqi Government?MS. HARF: I’m just not going to go back down that road. I don’t --Matthew Lee: Well, the answer is yes, okay? And I don’t see why you can’t say --MS. HARF: Do you want my job, then? You want to answer?Matthew Lee: No, but I would prefer that you not try to sidestep. I mean, it’s a pretty --MS. HARF: I’m not trying to sidestep it.Matthew Lee: Yeah, you --MS. HARF: We’re focused on 2014 and where we go from here. A discussion or debate about what we may or may not have --Matthew Lee: His question was, “How do you respond --MS. HARF: -- about what we may or not have wanted in 2011 --Matthew Lee: Hold --MS. HARF: -- is not relevant to the discussion today, Matt.Matthew Lee: It’s completely relevant --MS. HARF: It’s just not.Matthew Lee: -- to the question that he asked --MS. HARF: I disagree.Matthew Lee: -- which was that critics– his question was critics suggest or say, claim, accuse the Administration of abandoning Iraq. And --MS. HARF: And I disagreed with the premise.Matthew Lee: Okay. And I’m asking you --MS. HARF: Because I said --Matthew Lee: Was the Administration interested in concluding a SOFA with the Iraqi Government or not back several years ago?MS. HARF: I’m just not going to – I’m not going to go back down that road. What I’ve said is that you don’t define being --Matthew Lee: Okay. You’re looking for a – you think that I’m
trying to set a trap for you, and I’m not. I’m just trying to get a
straight answer, and it’s a historical fact that you were involved in
negotiations with the Iraq --MS. HARF: Absolutely. I’m not saying we weren’t involved in them.Matthew Lee: Okay. Well, then, what’s wrong?MS. HARF: But you were asking what we wanted, what we didn’t want, what the content of the discussions were.Matthew Lee: The whole point of the SOFA was the same point as the BSA in Afghanistan, which was to allow --MS. HARF: They’re actually quite different.Matthew Lee: I understand that, but it was to keep some presence --MS. HARF: So don’t make that comparison.Matthew Lee: -- to keep some presence on the ground in Iraq.MS. HARF: Again, they’re very different situations.Matthew Lee: Yes.MS. HARF: Very different situations.Matthew Lee: They are. But the suggestion if you deny that the U.S. abandoned Iraq --MS. HARF: Absolutely. Because I don’t think it’s defined --Matthew Lee: -- then you might want to explain --MS. HARF: -- by boots on the ground.Matthew Lee: Then you might want to explain to people that the
Administration did try to conclude a SOFA with the Iraqis that would
have allowed --MS. HARF: I just don’t think that’s a helpful discussion to have today.Matthew Lee: It’s the answer to the question, though.MS. HARF: I don’t think it’s a helpful discussion to have today --Matthew Lee: And if you --MS. HARF: -- and I think I would define our engagement with Iraq not by boots on the ground.Matthew Lee: Fair enough.Lucas Tomlinson: But after 8,000 people are killed, that’s also not a helpful way to define our involvement in the country.MS. HARF: Well, certainly we’re doing what we can to help them
build their capability. We have been very clear that we are partners
with Iraq in this shared fight, but we also were very clear about – the
President was when he came into office about ending the war there, about
building a new relationship going forward, and focusing on other
security threats going forward. So again, this isn’t something we’re going to relitigate here,
something that happened in 2011. What we’re focused on now is how we
continue building the relationship and building their capabilities.Lucas Tomlinson: But to Matt’s point in – for the Administration to
end the war in Iraq, did you all perhaps forget to leave behind some
tools that could aid them in defeating adversaries?MS. HARF: Absolutely not. Again, you don’t define a relationship with a country by boots on the ground. That’s just ridiculous.Lucas Tomlinson: But some would define the relationship about peace, and they define the relationship --MS. HARF: Well, again, we can’t impose peace on people. I think that’s --Lucas Tomlinson: But you give them tools to aid them.MS. HARF: Which is exactly what we’re doing. But it’s a tough
fight and it’s a hard challenge, and these issues aren’t easy. If they
were easy they would have been dealt with years ago. So it’s not like if
we just flipped a switch and did x, y, or z, the terrorist threat in
Iraq would go away. That’s just not how the – that’s not how it works.So we’re helping them build their capability. We’re helping provide
them with the tools, the guidance, the assistance, as they fight this
fight. But it’s really up to them, in conjunction with us helping them,
to push out the extremists, to encourage moderates, to learn the lessons
we all learned from the years we were there when we did have boots on
the ground, and try and move the situation forward in a better way.Said. I’ve missed you.

Said Arikat: Happy New Year.MS. HARF: We’re going to go to Said next. Happy New Year.Said Arikat: I just wanted to follow up – happy New Year to you. I
wanted to follow up on Iraq. So you agree with the tactics that the
Maliki government is using? Is that what you’re saying?MS. HARF: That’s not what I’m saying --Said Arikat: All right.MS. HARF: -- at all. We’re obviously --Said Arikat: But you said you’d leave it up to them how they want to conduct this operation.MS. HARF: Well, that was a broad statement. So we’re obvious following – if you’re talking about Anbar --Said Arikat: Right.MS. HARF: -- we’re obviously following the events in Anbar.
We’ve been encouraged by efforts by several of Iraq’s political leaders
to contain the crisis in Anbar and unite forces against extremists.
Obviously, we’re in close contact from the ground by Ambassador Beecroft
here, from Brett McGurk and others, with the Iraqi Government at all
levels to discuss the way forward. We’re following the situation there
and helping in any way we can.Said Arikat: Now, seeing how the United States is also sending
drones and so on to strike terrorist camps in Yemen and other places,
why not do the same thing in Iraq?MS. HARF: Each country is different. Each situation is
different. And we provide assistance with counterterrorism in different
ways everywhere. They’re just not always comparable situations.Said Arikat: Is that because there is a lack of agreement on these things between you and the Iraqi Government?MS. HARF: There’s just different situations. I would hesitate
from making any generalizations or analysis of it. They’re just all
different.

That's the State Dept transcript (I think I edited out a one line exchange -- not from the three reporters -- as I rushed to insert the names of the reporters -- it's something like "Happy New Year" -- it's not pertinent to the exchange if I did edit it out by accident).

Let's move to Bob Somerby who's really flaunting the ignorance these days. He continues to pimp that bad New York Times article but he's really flaunting his ignorance in a way that you rarely get. At least not since we ridiculed him for at Third Estate Sunday Review many years ago. Since then, Bob's kept that embarrassing and stupid side of himself hidden. Today he's takes his crazy for a cruise down the freeway:

Krugman was right on target!
Over the past several decades, our discourse has been ruled by script.
Again and again, these “story lines” have shaped the coverage of various
issues and events, often “in the teeth” of rather obvious evidence.

A) It's not 'script," it's narrative you morons -- that's Krugman and Bob. Narrative. That's what called throughout the 20th century and if either man understood journalism, they might grasp that.

B) In fairness to Krugman, he hopefully has learned something since 2004. If not, he's as ridiculous as Bob Somerby because . . .

C) Check out the vanity on Somerby.

'The press went after my roommate Al Gore! And I discovered the press wasn't fair!'

Who the hell do you think you are?

He's an ahistorical idiot who repeatedly glorifies the press up until Al Gore's persecution by the press. He's forever waxing on about Walter Cronkite and how wonderful the press was then.

His vanity that tells him he's discovered a new land? It's lying to him.

We lived up in CambridgeAnd browsed in the hippest newsstands Then we started our own newspaperGave the truth about Uncle SamWe loved to be so radicalBut like a ragged love affairSome became disenchantedAnd some of us just got scared.Now are you playing possumKeeping a low profileAre you just playing possum for awhile
-- "Playing Possum," written by Carly Simon, first appears on her Playing Possum

In 1908, Mary Baker Eddy started the Christian Science Monitor. Why? As the paper explains:One answer might be found in a story the Monitor’s Washington bureau chief, David Cook, related in a talk several years ago:"Consider
this case. It is 1907. An elderly New England woman finds herself being
targeted by Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World. She is 86 years old and
holds some unconventional religious beliefs that she expounds in a book,
Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. The book becomes a
bestseller, making her wealthy and a well-known public figure.The
New York World decides she is incapable of managing her own affairs and
persuades some of her friends and her two sons to sue for control of
her estate. Although Boston and New Hampshire newspapers and major wire
services interview this woman and find her competent, the New York World
is unrelenting. The lady in question finally is taken to court where
the case against her is dropped.And the next year this woman, Mary Baker Eddy, founds The Christian Science Monitor.Given
her experience with the press, it is not all that surprising that she
sets as the Monitor’s goal 'to injure no man, but to bless all mankind.'
In one of life’s little ironies, Joseph Pulitzer went on to endow the
Pulitzer prizes for journalistic excellence.And Mrs. Eddy's newspaper has gone on to win seven Pulitzer Prizes so far, the latest in 2002 for editorial cartooning.

Here's another name: Ida B. Wells and, guess what, her problems with the press were a lot more serious than their mocking of some Ivy league-er who was forever sticking his own foot in his own mouth. From PBS' The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow:

While living in Memphis, Wells became a co-owner and editor of a local
black newspaper called THE FREE SPEECH AND HEADLIGHT. Writing her
editorials under the pseudonym "Iola," she condemned violence against
blacks, disfranchisement, poor schools, and the failure of black people
to fight for their rights. She was fired from her teaching job and
became a full-time journalist. In 1892, Tom Moss, a respected black
store owner and friend of Barnett, was lynched, along with two of his
friends, after defending his store against an attack by whites. Wells,
outraged, attacked the evils of lynching in her newspaper; she also
encouraged the black residents of Memphis to leave town. When Wells was
out of town, her newspaper was destroyed by a mob and she was warned not
to return to Memphis because her life was in danger. Wells took her
anti-lynching campaign to England and was well received.

Her interest in the subject began in Boston in 1879 at a lecture by
Chief Standing Bear who described the forced removal of the Ponca
Indians from their Nebraska reservation. Jackson was incensed by what
she heard and began to circulate petitions, raised money, and wrote
letters to the New York Times on the Poncas' behalf. As one observer
noted, she became a “holy terror.” (Friends and critics have variously
described her as “passionate,” “volatile,” “defiant” and
“uncompromising.” Historian Antoinette May said she “lived a life that
few women of her day had the courage to live.”) Jackson also began work
on a book condemning the government's Indian policy and its record of
broken treaties. When A Century of Dishonor was published in 1881,
Jackson sent a copy to every member of Congress with the following
admonition printed in red on the cover: “Look upon your hands: they are
stained with the blood of your relations.”

In the same century, feminist Matilda Joslyn Gage would purchase Ballot Box to advance the fight for women to have the right to vote. There was Nelly Bly, Ambrose Bierce and Henry Demerest Lloyd among others. Of all from that time period, one of the most famous may be Frederick Douglass who started the anti-slavery newspaper The North Star. Douglas used his press to fight for an end to slavery.

And Bob Somerby uses his to disprove the press claim that Al Gore said he invented the internet?

Some perspective, please.

In the 20th century, feminist Charlotte Perkins Gilman would not only write the short story classic "The Yellow Wallpaper," she would also work on various magazines including her own, The Forerunner (1909 to 1916) where many of her finest works would appear including "If I Were A Man." In 1970, feminists Norma Lesser, Colette Reid, Heidi Steffens, Marilyn Webb and Marlene Wicks started the periodical off our backs. Prior to that, Progressive Party members James Aronson, Cedric Belfrage and John T. McManus founded the National Guardian newspaper (1948) to combat the Cold War mentality that dominated so much of the US press. It became the Guardian in 1968. It's Vietnam coverage included Wilfred Burchett's articles on the NLF. And of course the 20th century saw I.F. Stone. August 24, 1964, he opens his (non-MSM) report:The American government and the American press have kept the full truth
about the Tonkin Bay incidents from the American public. Let us begin
with the retaliatory bombing raids on North Vietnam. When I went to New
York to cover the UN Security Council debate on the affair, UN
correspondents at lunch recalled cynically that four months earlier
Adlai Stevenson told the Security Council the U.S. had "repeatedly
expressed" its emphatic disapproval "of retaliatory raids, wherever they
occur and by whomever they are committed." But none mentioned this in
their dispatches.

A one-person publishing industry and truth teller, Stone was needed precisely because the media little Bobby Somerby thinks was so fair once upon a time was not fair at all. "All governments lie," Stone rightly said.

Seymour Hersh's reports on the abuses of the government under Bully Boy Bush were welcomed in The New Yorker. Today he has to go to The London Review of Books to get "Whose Sarin?" published. If he only he could have made himself useless like Jane Mayer who once had the guts and courage to report on torture and Guantanamo but now pads out DNC talking points and calls that reporting. (Don't hiss too loudly. Jane's best friend made the WikiLeaks documentary and she's suffered on the party circuit as a result.)

Bob Somerby longs for the return of a time that never existed -- people like him are the reason some see nostalgia as a sickness.

Whenever Bob Somerby starts 'explaining' the world to us, I groan and remember this:None of these women need lectures from Washington about values. They don't need to hear about an idealized world that never was as righteous or carefree as some would like us to think.

That was Hillary Clinton, the first time I ever heard her speak, August, 1992 at the ABA convention in San Francisco. I miss that Hillary.

But I remember her words about how women didn't need "to hear about an idealized world that never was as righteous or carefree as some would like us to think" whenever Somerby's off on his idiotic claims of the wonderful press until the days when they went after Al Gore.

Bob Somerby wants to reinvent the wheel and divorce himself from history because, point of fact, the treatment of Al Gore was not the end of the world or even the most outrageous behavior of the press.

The press is out of control in every country and long has been because it sells the premise that it serves the people. It doesn't. It serves the power, it covers up for the power. Every now and then, things get a little too outrageous -- even for those in power -- and we get an 'active' press.

The history of the press around the world is the same which is why I have less and less use for the critique of the for-profit press in a for-profit society. The press works for those in power and serves those in power.

It treats public servents as divine kings, born of virgins, who must be worshiped. It's disgusting.

To tell the truth of how power holds onto power, of who it victimizes and how it harms?

Historically, you've always needed something other than the mainstream press for that.

As is evident with the ongoing terrorization of the people of Anbar Province and the western press refusing to recognize those being harmed, wounded and killed. Contrast western media's stenography with actual reporting from National Iraqi News Agency:

The people of Falluja are calling for help from the intensified
artillery bombardment the city is being subjected to on Friday evening,
Jan. 3.Eyewitnesses say that Askari, Jighaifi and Shuhada
neighborhoods are being subjected to heavy random bombing, and civilians
are not safe anymore.They point out that military units are
trying to enter the city from the south and east, but heavy fight has
forced them to withdraw.Medical source at Falluja Hospital said that 3 bodies and 28 wounded have been received so far as a result of the bombing.

Throughout the week, Sahwa leader Ahmed Abu Risha's been stamping his feet and issuing statements (such as here) demanding other tribal leaders and the people of Anbar join with Nouri's assault.

Why?

Why's actually two part.

First off, no one really listens to him. Other tribal leaders are stronger -- especially those not echoing Nouri's calls.

We're not talking about whoring -- yet -- although Risha is a whore.

We're talking history.

The tribes fall apart as a real influence in the 1960s. As Iraq moves closer to a nation-state, the tribes matter less. The US government, after the illegal war started in 2003, began (briefly) talking up the tribes and did so for a number of reasons. The two primary ones? The US was losing the illegal war and desperate to grab onto anything so the notion that the tribes had been helpful in 'pacifying' Iraq earlier became something to pimp. But earlier was with the British at the start of the 20th century. Again, by the 1960s their power had waned.

Their power waned because of the second reason that the US government wanted to pimp the lie. If tribes really matter, heavens, why hasn't the US government been pumping money into them! Immediately that began. And that's why tribal leaders lost influence in the 1960s. A number of them were cheap whores -- that includes Risha's family -- and took money from Saddam Hussein. They ran corrupt little areas and grew rich.

And the people in the tribe were betrayed.

Not all tribal leaders in Anbar were like that.

And some still have influence because they were not bought paid for -- by Saddam or the US.

And it's these leaders that Whore Risha tries to intimidate and bully.

Risha knows a lot about bullying. He learned it from his trashy mafia family. His brother was a 'hero' to the US government in the early part of the illegal war. Maybe the same fate awaits Risha? September 13, 2007, his brother -- then the leader -- was assassinated on the outskirts of Ramai. That's when Risha takes over. He's known as the less charismatic brother. Making Sense of Proxy Wars: States, Surrogates and the Use of Force (edited by Michael A. Innes) notes Risha is considered mafia in Iraq. He's a mobster. He was that before the US came calling and put him in charge of Sahwa (also known as Awakenings and Sons Of Iraq).

In 2009, Dahr Jamail (Huffington Post) reported:As early as April 2006, the Rand Corporation released a report, "The
Anbar Awakening," identifying America's potential new allies as a group
of sheiks who used to control smuggling rings and organized crime in the
area.One striking example was Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, who founded the
first Awakening groups in al-Anbar and later led the entire movement
until he was assassinated in 2007,
shortly after he met with President Bush. It was well known in the
region that Abu Risha was primarily a smuggler defending his business
operations by joining the Americans.Not surprisingly, given the lucrative nature of the cooperative
relationship that developed, whenever an Awakening group sheik is
assassinated, another is always there to take his place. Abu Risha was,
in fact, promptly replaced as "president" of the Anbar Awakening by his
brother Sheik Ahmad Abu Risha, also now in the "construction business."[. . .]Abu Risha's compound in Ramadi was even larger than Sheik Aifan's
mansion -- and even more heavily guarded. We arrived to find an
election official already waiting to take Aifan's written complaint on
the rigging charges. The chief of police for the province was in
attendance too, a sign of the power and influence of these two men who
share a bond of power and money. (Abu Risha even owns a camel farm.)

Was it necessary to note that Risha's a thug, a mobster? Considering that in today's State Dept press briefing, Marie Harf referred to the crook as a "moderate," yeah, it was.

Why have you awaken and then forsakenMy magic, my magic dreamsThey've all, they've all, all lost their spellAnd where there, where I had a little bit of hopeYes, sir, there is Oh, look at me now, there is an empty shell

In 2008, Risha met with Barack face-to-face. But since?

He told Eli Lake, "There is no contact right now." And he wanted to ask Barack, "Why did you leave Iraq to Iran? Why did you give up the many sacrifices that Americans made?"

Risha can take comfort in the fact that a number of artists in Baghdad have endorsed the assault. If that surprises you, you must have missed how many 'titans' of the entertainment industry got in bed with Bully Boy Bush. Or for that matter decided to whore for Barack -- I'm referring to the idiots who see their job as convincing Americans to support this or that program. Maybe if, for example, Amy Poehler worried less about what Barack wanted her to say and more about her real job, Parks and Recreation wouldn't have such bad ratings, such lousy storylines (all that work for Barack allowed her to miss the fact that she's been turned into a supporting character on her own show) and this season might be the show's last.

As a general rule, when people put their trust in you, you need to be careful how you use it -- whether that's advertising or for some government. You cheapen yourself when you whore and you should never betray your public by presenting them with a message you've failed to explain you were asked, by a politician, to present. Champion a cause, by all means, but that's different than being a megaphone for government.

That's whoring. And that's what the artists covered in the story are doing as well.

Nouri's assault began this week with the attack on the peaceful protesters.

(Baghdad) – Iraqi authorities should immediately order a transparent and
impartial investigation into violence between security forces and
antigovernment protesters in the western city of Ramadi. The fighting on
December 30, 2013, left 17 people dead.The investigation should also look into the apparently related killings
of the brother and five bodyguards of a member of parliament, Ahmed
al-Alwany, during his arrest on December 28. The authorities should
ensure that all those responsible for unlawful killings and other misuse
of force are brought to justice.“The facts of the Ramadi incident are unclear, but government
statements before the clashes and the deployment of the army seemed
intended more to provoke violence than prevent it,” said Joe Stork,
deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Seventeen people
died at Ramadi and the Iraqi authorities need to find out exactly what
happened and why.”In the early hours of December 30, hundreds of security force personnel
descended on the Ramadi protest camp, where 300 to 400 Sunnis were
protesting Iraq’s
Shia-led government’s alleged use of abusive counterterrorism measures.
Two witnesses told Human Rights Watch that at around 6:30 a.m., army
and special police (SWAT) forces with at least 30 Humvee military
vehicles, 20 pickup trucks, and 18 armored vehicles surrounded the Ezz
and Karama square.Witness accounts differ as to who began the shooting, but an exchange
of fire between the security forces and armed tribesmen outside the
square resulted in six deaths and ten wounded.For a week, the authorities had repeatedly threatened to remove the
protesters in Ramadi and other largely Sunni areas. Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki on December 27 accused the protesters of harboring
al-Qaeda leaders,saying, “Today will be the last day of prayers at the
Ramadi protest site,” and threatened to “burn down” the protesters’
tents. On December 23, Fadel Barwari, the commander of Iraq’s
Counterterrorism Service, which oversees the SWAT forces, had said
on his official Facebook page, referring to government operations
against al-Qaeda in Anbar: “I swear to God I will kill those dogs and
those who are with them. I will wipe them out.” He said his soldiers
should “stomp them out without mercy.”On December 28, the Iraqi state news agency reported
that 30 armored vehicles had been deployed about 500 meters from the
protest camp in Ramadi. In the last year of ongoing protests in Sunni
areas, security forces fired on and killed peaceful protesters in at
least four other incidents.After the army surrounded the square on December 30, hundreds of men
from local tribes armed with guns who had positioned themselves to
defend the square fought back, the witnesses said. One protester told
Human Rights Watch that the protesters had dug ditches next to their
tents for protection, a precaution “learned after Hawija,” referring to a
security force attack
on a protest camp in April that killed at least 51 people. “As soon as
the fighting started, people threw themselves into the ditches for
cover,” he said. Among those killed were three people not involved in
the fighting.One protester said that fighting between city residents and security
forces spread throughout the city by 8 a.m. and was still going on at
6:30 p.m., when he last spoke with Human Rights Watch. According to news
reports, the December 30 clashes left 17 people dead, and clashes have
continued intermittently throughout the week.“The fighting is all over the place,” another witness, who lived two
kilometers from the protest square, said that day. Three other Ramadi
residents reported particularly heavy gunfire in neighborhoods
throughout Ramadi and Fallujah.The Ramadi residents told Human Rights Watch that they hid in their
homes throughout the day to avoid crossfire. One said he hid under a
staircase because “we can hear the bullets whizzing over our heads.”On December 28, Iraqi army and SWAT forces arrested al-Alwany, a Sunni
member of parliament, at his home in Ramadi, claiming officials wanted
al-Alwany and his brother on suspicion of terrorism. During the arrest,
security forces killed five of al-Alwany’s bodyguards and al-Alwany’s
brother, Ali.Agence France Pressereported
a “ministry statement” claiming that the two brothers and their guards
had opened fire on security forces, killing one and wounding five. The
arrests and the deaths ratcheted up sectarian tensions in the area. A photograph posted on Facebook appeared to show a soldier stepping on Ali al-Alwany’s head immediately after his death.Defense Minister Saadoun Dulaimi went to Anbar province at the time of
al-Alwany’s arrest, apparently to negotiate an end to the protests. When
Dulaimi left Ramadi on December 29 at about 9 p.m., he issued a statement that
if the squares were emptied within 48 hours, he would release
al-Alwany. Immediately following his departure, security forces cut
cellular communications and Internet access across Anbar province,
according to a Defense Ministry statement to local media.Ramadi residents told Human Rights Watch that immediately following
al-Alwany’s arrest, army and SWAT forces surrounded Ramadi and imposed a
curfew, prohibiting residents from driving or entering or exiting the
city, or bringing in food or propane.Ramadi’s protest camp has existed for about a year. In a television
interview on al-Iraqiyya channel on the morning of the December 30 raid,
a Defense Ministry spokesman, Mohamed al-Askari, denied that the “removing of tents” had “caused any loss of life” and warned of a “media escalation” of events. Al-Mada Press news agency reported
that another Defense Ministry source had confirmed that the Ramadi
square raid had led to heavy fighting and that security forces had
surrounded the city the day before.The parliamentary speaker, Osama al-Nujaifi, head of the Sunni “Mutahidun” block, said he
sent a parliamentary committee to investigate the attack on the Ramadi
square, but that forces from Baghdad Operations Command prevented the
committee from entering Anbar province on orders from Prime Minister
Maliki. Forty-four Sunni members of parliament resigned to protest the
security forces raid after Deputy Prime Minister Saleh Mutlak, another
leading Sunni politician, called on Sunni members of parliament and government officials to resign.The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by
Law Enforcement Officials state that security forces in policing
situations shall “apply nonviolent means before resorting to the use of
force and firearms,” and that “whenever the lawful use of force and
firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall: (a) Exercise
restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the
offense and the legitimate objective to be achieved; (b) Minimize damage
and injury, and respect and preserve human life.”The Basic Principles further state that, “Governments shall ensure that
arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement
officials is punished as a criminal offense under the law.” Military
forces, when performing law enforcement functions, are also governed by
these rules.“The situation in Anbar is only getting worse,” Stork said. “The
government should be taking urgent steps to quell violence from all
sides.”

Despite this week's assault, guess who didn't hide?

The people of Falluja who turned out today to protest as Iraqi Spring MC documents.

NINA reports:Sheikh Adnan Mishaal Imam and preacher of Friday unified prayers in
which held in al-Dawlah mosque in Ramadi, said : " The current
government of Baghdad is working to foment the spirit of sectarianism in
Iraq in order to keep in power, as is the case in Syria.He
added during Friday sermon : " We do not want the release criminals and
murderers, but we ask for the release of innocent prisoners and the
abolition of Article 4 as well as the liar detective informant.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.